Advertisement

Bioethics in Social Context

  • Larry R. Churchill
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 50)

Summary

In summary, I have argued that this difficulty in attending and recognizing is tied to restrictive methodological assumptions about the field of bioethics. These restrictive assumptions are not just unfortunate blindspots, but potentially disabling forces to those who are most vulnerable and powerless in medical interactions. I have also argued that placing bioethical inquiry in the larger context of other humanities and social science disciplines will help to counter this methodological parochialism. The distinct advantage of placing bioethics in social context is that an interdisciplinary setting makes it less likely that we will be seduced by the intellectual glamour, or the intuitive emotional appeal, of any single approach to moral problems. Resisting a hyper-theoretical approach to the methods of bioethics will make for greater agility in problem-solving, and more resilience in facing those problems that cannot be solved. It will, in the end, make for better health professionals and for better patient care.

Keywords

Ethical Theory Ethic Consultation Moral Life Biomedical Ethic Moral Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anonymous: 1992a, ‘Bedside story’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2, 185–186.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonymous: 1992b, ‘Bedside story’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 3, 285–286.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arras, J. and Hunt, R. (eds.): 1983 (2nd ed.), Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Mayfield, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arras, J. and Steinbock, B. (eds.): 1995 (4th ed.), Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Mayfield, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J.: 1979 (1st ed.), 1995 (4th ed.), Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger, J. and Mohr, J.: 1976, A Fortunate Man, Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative, London, U. K.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carson, R.: 1995, ‘Beyond respect to recognition and due regard’, in Chronic Illness: From Experience to Policy, S. K. Toombs, D. Barnard and R. Carson (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charon, R.: 1994, ‘Narrative contributions to medical ethics: Recognition, formulation, interpretation, and validation in the practice of the ethicist’, in A Matter of Principles? Ferment in U. S. Bioethics, E. DuBose, R. Hamel and L. O’Connell (eds.), Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Churchill, L.: 1980, ‘Bioethical reductionism and our sense of the human’, Man and Medicine 5, 229–242.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crites, S.: 1971, ‘The narrative quality of experience’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion XXXIX, 291–311.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frank, A.: 1991, At the Will of the Body, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hauerwas, S.: 1977, Truthfulness and Tragedy, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonsen, A. and Toulmin, S.: 1988, The Abuse of Casuistry, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacIntyre, A.: 1981, After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Merleau-Ponty, M.: 1964, Signs, R. McLeary (trans.), Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller, J.: 1987, The Ethics of Reading: Kant, deMan, Eliot, Trollope, James and Benjamin, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murray, T.: 1993, ‘Moral reasoning in social context’, Journal of Social Issues 49, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toulmin, S.: 1994, ‘Casuistry and clinical ethics’, in A Matter of Principles, E. DuBose, R. Hamel and L. O’Connell (eds.), Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wittgenstein, L.: 1967, Zettel, G. Anscombe (trans.), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolf, S.: 1992, ‘Toward a theory of process’, Law, Medicine and Health Care 20, 278–289.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry R. Churchill
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations